Free Energy is easy

Author Topic: Free Energy is easy (Read 33548 times)

Topic Options

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #100 on: 2025-08-27, 18:42:55 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Verpies

Quote

Does that mean that conceptual correctness matters ?
...or only mathematical correctness matters, ...like the proportions present in the Ohm's law, that is the foundation of electric circuit design ?

That sounds like a loaded question imo.

You seem to be implying I need to pick sides when I don't. I only look at the current theory and evidence which makes the most sense to me and apply it to what I already know. I only adopt what is relevant and works. I don't pick sides because it's a losing proposition.

For example, https://scitechdaily.com/baffling-scientists-for-centuries-new-study-unravels-mystery-of-static-electricity/
Obviously the mathematical and conceptual models were all wrong. Which version of misguided and wrong would you have me believe?. This is why it's important not to limit our options or pigeonhole ourselves.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Verpies	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #101 on: 2025-08-27, 18:54:43 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4577	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-08-27, 18:42:55 That sounds like a loaded question imo. Loaded with what ?

F6FLT

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #102 on: 2025-08-27, 22:01:15 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2497

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-08-27, 17:10:14

...
So I found most of FE tech is not some grand awakening or realization. More so finding all the false assumptions and mistakes made by mainstream science.
...

[Diatribe ON]
This “FE tech” does not exist. No device works. There is no “FE tech” because there is no “FE science,” no theory, no formalism that would allow for comparison with measurements.
Mainstream science has proven itself, and a whole range of fantastic technologies have emerged from it, unlike FE, which gives an idea of nothingness.
If the most prominent FE proponents were less pretentious, perhaps they could learn from their mistakes, make progress, overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect, and invent something that works. But no. They spend their time ranting against scientists in the name of vague interpretations of popular science that they barely understand, in addition to confusing it with science.
The movement of charges in a conductor seen as a flow of charged balls is popular science, not electromagnetism. Does the scitechdaily.com link cited call into question Maxwell's equations, the value of the electron's charge, Coulomb's force? Of course not. The theory is solid; what we understand from the article is the difficulty of application in the field of condensed matter associated with electromagnetism, a general difficulty in complex rather than elementary fields. What is not solid are the interpretations of scientific subjects, and the less you know about it, the more ridiculous your interpretations are.
When I see one of these jokers attacking conventional science, projecting the limits of his knowledge onto those without whom he would not even have the concept of the electron, I am reminded of a yapping dog pissing at the foot of a cathedral.
When these people have created something that works, then they can give lessons. For now, they are making themselves look ridiculous and only shine in the eyes of other useless people of their ilk.
[Diatribe OFF]

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #103 on: 2025-08-28, 00:55:16 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Verpies

Quote

Loaded with what ?

AI: "A loaded question is a type of question that contains an implicit assumption, often making it difficult for the respondent to answer without appearing to agree with that assumption."

Quote

Does that mean that conceptual correctness matters ?
...or only mathematical correctness matters, ...like the proportions present in the Ohm's law, that is the foundation of electric circuit design ?

It sounds like you wanted me to choose between whether conceptual correctness matters or only mathematical correctness matters. Everything matters but I wouldn't limit myself to one or the other.

Relating to your example of ohms law which shows the relationship between I, V and R as long as the temperature and physical conditions remain constant. It works conceptually and mathematically... but not all the time. In fact it would be super easy to appear to violate ohms law under many conditions relating to a high rate of change and HV circuits. At HV the charges ie. electrons, tend to radiate from the conductor thus the current (I) reduces the longer the conductor length. It's the equivalent of a leaky pipe, in fact we call the phenomena corona or leakage in HV circuits. It should also be obvious this could appear to violate another law called Kirchhoff's law.

So we need to be clear, ohms law only applies under a limited number of specific conditions relating to low voltage closed circuits. Very few if any of which exist in nature so ohms law is mainly a man made contrivance.

Ohms law like many supposed laws is also an overly simplistic statement of the obvious. If we have a pipe full of water with a flow of I and a known Resistance/loss per unit length of pipe it's super simple to determine the initial pressure which produced the flow. Hell maybe I could win a Nobel, I=V/R except when portions of I called "leakage" radiate from the circuit reducing I. Said leakage plus I represent the total flow in the system minus any conversion of matter to energy or vice versa.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

chief kolbacict	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #104 on: 2025-08-28, 07:19:30 »
Sr. Member Posts: 419	Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-08-27, 22:01:15 [Diatribe ON] This “FE tech” does not exist. No device works. [Diatribe OFF] Do aliens from a higher civilization have FE ?

F6FLT	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #105 on: 2025-08-28, 07:35:18 »
Group: Professor Hero Member Posts: 2497	All we know for sure, since an FE genius has confirmed it, is that they don't need FE machines to get around; they ride pink unicorns. --------------------------- "Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #106 on: 2025-08-28, 17:17:06 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Quote

So we need to be clear, ohms law only applies under a limited number of specific conditions relating to low voltage closed circuits. Very few if any of which exist in nature so ohms law is mainly a man made contrivance.

Verpies got me thinking more about ohms law and my last post above.

Ohms law like many supposed laws is an overly simplistic statement of the obvious which only applies under under very specific conditions. Ohms law only applies to ohmic materials having constant properties. It does not apply to systems, like we see in nature, where the material properties are non-uniform and can change.

For example, ohm's law does not apply to non-ohmic or non-linear devices like diodes and batteries where the resistance can change. Which confirms my statement that ohms law is basically useless in nature where all the variables are always changing along a given path. So as Faraday implied much of the math and equations are gross generalizations. Faraday's reasoning was we cannot calculate anything accurately where all the variables are always changing so we should just ignore most of the details for simplicity. I also find this to be the case in much of physics.

For example, ask an AI to calculate the voltage, current and resistance per inch in a lightning bolt 1 km long. It will babble on using all kinds of equations but if you ask it if the calculations are accurate it will tell you ... these are gross estimates or order-of-magnitude approximations, LMAO. In fact, basically useless because the plasma stream is wildly non-uniform where all the variables are changing per unit length.

It's almost comical, when the AI did try to calculate the variables it averaged everything which is almost always the case. They take the beginning conditions and the end conditions and basically ignore everything in between. Quite scientific, ignoring 99% of the variables and conditions between two points. Even more comical, like many people the first thing the AI did was try to apply ohm's law to my question, LOL. It's just mind boggling...

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Verpies

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #107 on: 2025-08-28, 23:57:51 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4577

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-08-28, 00:55:16

It sounds like you wanted me to choose between whether conceptual correctness matters or only mathematical correctness matters. Everything matters but I wouldn't limit myself to one or the other.

It's fine that you want to expand the domain of the question.

I want to make a point that mathematical correctness does not guarantee conceptual correctness.
In fact mathematical success can lend credibility to a flawed concept.

Below are several historical examples from science where theories were mathematically correct (often yielding accurate predictions, fitting data well and resulting in working devices) but conceptually incorrect (failing to capture the true underlying reality).
These cases illustrate how mathematical and even empirical success can mask conceptual flaws.

Ptolemaic Geocentric Model (Ancient Greece to Middle Ages): This model used complex epicycles and deferents to describe planetary motion around Earth. Mathematically, it could predict celestial positions with reasonable accuracy for astronomical tables and navigation. However, it was conceptually wrong because the solar system is heliocentric, with planets orbiting the Sun, not Earth. The geocentric assumption stemmed from an incorrect view of Earth's place in the universe, later overturned by Copernicus and Kepler.
Phlogiston Theory (17th-18th Centuries): This explained combustion as the release of a substance called phlogiston from materials. It mathematically accounted for mass changes in reactions (though inconsistently) and fit observations like rusting or burning. Conceptually, it was wrong because combustion involves oxidation with oxygen, not the loss of a hypothetical element; Lavoisier's work on conservation of mass revealed the flaw.
Bohr's Atomic Model (1913): Niels Bohr's model depicted electrons orbiting the nucleus in fixed circular paths, quantized by angular momentum. It mathematically predicted the spectral lines of hydrogen and ionized helium with high precision, matching experimental data. Conceptually, it was incorrect because electrons do not follow classical orbits; quantum mechanics later showed they behave as probability waves, not particles in deterministic paths.
Sommerfeld's Extension of the Bohr Model (Early 20th Century): Arnold Sommerfeld refined Bohr's model by introducing elliptical orbits and relativistic effects. His equations mathematically reproduced the fine structure of hydrogen's spectrum accurately, even matching later quantum-relativistic derivations. Conceptually, it was flawed for the same reason as Bohr's—electrons are not "tiny balls" in classical orbits; this was superseded by full quantum mechanics.
Rayleigh-Jeans Law for Blackbody Radiation (Late 19th Century): Derived from classical statistical mechanics, this law mathematically described the energy distribution of blackbody radiation at low frequencies. It fit data in that regime but predicted an "ultraviolet catastrophe" (infinite energy at high frequencies). Conceptually, it was wrong because it applied classical physics to quantum-scale phenomena; Planck's quantum hypothesis resolved this.

These examples show how mathematical prowess can sustain incorrect concepts until paradigm-shifting discoveries emerge.

This is still happening today, e.g.:
We can precisely describe mathematically how the force between two permanent magnets depends on the magnetic flux density gradient (we can even build machines based on this mathematical relationship), but most scientisct cannot conceptually define magnetic flux any more than the mechanism of that force.

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #108 on: 2025-08-29, 15:58:45 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Verpies

Quote

I want to make a point that mathematical correctness does not guarantee conceptual correctness.
In fact mathematical success can lend credibility to a flawed concept.

Agree, it's easy to get lost in the math and equations. Got pretty deep into the math and theory when I was younger but saw no clear path forward so I moved on.

Quote

This is still happening today, e.g.:
We can precisely describe mathematically how the force between two permanent magnets depends on the magnetic flux density gradient (we can even build machines based on this mathematical relationship), but most scientisct cannot conceptually define magnetic flux any more than the mechanism of that force.

Agree and this relates to why I could not find a path forward using conventional physics. The problem I found was that in the rush to reduce everything to a few universal equations all the details were lost. Faraday, in his early lectures, touched on why reduction and generalization are problematic.

The problem is easy to understand and I had the same problem when rendering CFD models for gas and wind turbines 20 years ago. At low resolution/low detail I could render a basic model in a few hours. Double the resolution/detail and it takes 3 years to render the model. This led me to the realization that people and computers at present do not have the capacity to understand how all the little parts interact together in the big picture.

You nailed it down in your post imo. We can describe a physical magnet, we can describe the direction of forces however what actually happens within and in between the magnets eludes us. So I started building my own equipment and instruments to find the missing details. For example, an electric current and its associated magnetic field cannot move in straight lines when unconstrained. Which may explain why the shortest path between two points in nature is literally never a straight line. Yet almost everything we build and our systems are based on straight lines.

So I found FE is not so much a matter of violating any laws more so changing the rules. For example, everyone builds weak square houses but a dome or egg shaped house is magnitudes stronger. Square houses are literally designed to fail, found nowhere in nature... but we just keep building them. So our problem is not the laws of science it's mainly psychological where we reject all change and new ideas.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Aking.21	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #109 on: 2025-09-01, 00:52:25 »
Hero Member Posts: 559	The Bedini guy again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vkOz2eUMq8 --------------------------- Electrostatic induction: Put a 1KV charge on 1 plate of a capacitor. What does the environment do to the 2nd plate?

void	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #110 on: 2025-09-02, 06:03:24 »
Newbie Posts: 20	... « Last Edit: 2025-09-03, 13:01:00 by void »

Verpies	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #111 on: 2025-09-02, 11:09:02 »
Group: Administrator Hero Member Posts: 4577	Spot on analysis Void. Do you have a way to send him a message with a link (YT does not allow links) ?

void	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #112 on: 2025-09-02, 12:08:48 »
Newbie Posts: 20	Quote from: verpies on 2025-09-02, 11:09:02 Spot on analysis Void. Do you have a way to send him a message with a link (YT does not allow links) ? Hi Verpies. I'll msg you his contact info. Spencer has publicly posted his contact info, but I will msg it to you (assuming I can figure out how to send a PM here) in case he decides to take down his contact info at some point.

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #113 on: 2025-09-02, 16:04:04 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

On Bedini pulse motors, I think Spencer Frame is further ahead than most. However I have yet to see or hear of a credible replication based on the build criteria claimed by Bedini and other inventors.

In my opinion all the fake Bedini replications are similar to the fake Adams motor builds which are nothing like what Adams described and patented. It's weird and I can't understand why people cannot seem to read basic instructions. Any person with even a marginal intelligence could research all of Adams original literature and patents then build a valid replication but for some reason they choose not to. They always change the build and fail to get positive results.

First, the odds of anyone succeeding with electronic switching are basically zero. If you use LV electronic switching there is a 99% chance your wasting your time. All these FE inventors like Bedini and Adams started with mechanical switching for a reason. The first clue should have been that most successful FE devices all used spark gaps in the system. So were talking about a working voltage of 3 to 5 kV minimum. Which makes perfect sense because all the amateurs who failed are afraid of anything over 120V and 5kV is out of the question.

As such I reject the validity and data from all the fake Bedini and Adams motor replications I have seen to date. They are not accurate replications and basically a waste of time. It also begs the question why anyone would choose the Bedini motor over an Adams motor. Adams was light years ahead of Bedini, documented most of his work and patented a supposedly working device.

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

unimmortal

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #114 on: 2025-09-03, 00:00:34 »

Jr. Member

Posts: 83

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-02, 16:04:04

As such I reject the validity and data from all the fake Bedini and Adams motor replications I have seen to date. They are not accurate replications and basically a waste of time. It also begs the question why anyone would choose the Bedini motor over an Adams motor. Adams was light years ahead of Bedini, documented most of his work and patented a supposedly working device.

Disappointed you feel like that. Fake? How so. People are trying to learn, they might not understand all the ideas, but will still build in order to have conversations on forums just like this - I'm the same.

But you're being a little too dismissive. Got something running yourself? I sure have...

Verpies

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #115 on: 2025-09-03, 02:40:57 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4577

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-02, 16:04:04

All these FE inventors like Bedini and Adams started with mechanical switching for a reason. The first clue should have been that most successful FE devices all used spark gaps in the system. So were talking about a working voltage of 3 to 5 kV minimum.

Why is mechanical switching superior in this application ?
Why is high voltage desirable ?

P.S.
I also think that the Adams' motor is more complex than Bedini's because it involves the mechanical attraction of a soft ferromagnetic member and the resulting dynamic change in inductance of the coils. I once wrote something about this here.

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #116 on: 2025-09-03, 17:21:19 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Verpies

Quote

Why is mechanical switching superior in this application ?
Why is high voltage desirable ?

If we look at the majority of all FE patents they used arcing mechanical switches or spark gaps. This implies HV transient effects must be related to the effect in question. Confirmed by the fact all the low voltage replications don't seem to work.

Quote

P.S.
I also think that the Adams' motor is more complex than Bedini's because it involves the mechanical attraction of a soft ferromagnetic member and the resulting dynamic change in inductance of the coils. I once wrote something about this here.

Adams also built and patented a PM motor generator with a mechanical commutator shown below.

I agree with your basic analysis of an ordinary ferromagnetic core pulse motor and came to similar conclusions. I went further using input/output capacitors, voltage, current and field sensors tied to a microcomputer to continually monitor the variables and COP in real time. I seldom use a DMM or DSO which are primitive and prefer to build my own equipment. For example, my system progressively changes the system variables while monitoring and analyzing the field changes and COP.

Suppose you wanted to test an Adams motor setup and continually change the voltage, current, pulse frequency and width. Suppose each variable can only have a small number of possible values say 1 to 1001. The total number of possible combinations is 1,000,000,000,000 and at 1 test per minute it would take about 1.9 million years to complete the 1 trillion tests. At one test per second 31,688 years. So my perspective of "testing something" is quite different than most.

I hope this gives you some insight into what your actually up against. Even if one could build an exact physical replication of a device which is debatable the possible system variables are still magnitudes more difficult. Aren't you the math person?... have you run the numbers of what the odds of building an exact replication are?.

AC

Free Energy is easy

adams-motor-generator.png (621.98 kB, 1536x1067 - viewed 372 times.)

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #117 on: 2025-09-03, 18:59:49 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

For those interested in ferromagnetic core pulse motors they are called a switched reluctance motor (SRM) and can also act as generators.

The SRM concept is based on a coil/core attracting a piece of laminated steel. In an SRM the piece of steel just so happens to move in a circle we call a rotor. I built and tested piston/solenoid type motors and rotating ones. There are FE claims on both solenoid and rotating type reluctance motors. Like many FE technologies many started with solenoid motors then progressed to higher speed rotary versions so we can assume the working principal remained the same.

Which is interesting because a solenoid motor is a very basic testing platform anyone can build because a crankshaft is optional. My first version only had four basic parts with a spring above and below an iron slug inside a solenoid coil. An oscillating motor if you will.

Suppose the coil was wound near the top of the solenoid former. When the slug is attracted to the energized coil and moves upward this is a motor action. If we then quickly switched the coil from the source battery to a capacitor as the still magnetized slug moved back downward this produces a generator action. Again, the SRM rotor simply moves the iron slug in a circle nothing more. The motor/generator action remains.

I also tested a solenoid shaded pole variation. Here we simply wrap a heavy shorted coil around the iron slug. This tends to oppose a magnetic field change in the core. The shaded pole motor and induction motors are based on this principal using heavy shorted coils. If we add a diode to the heavy shorted coil the magnetic field opposition only happens during either the motor or generator function. Now were getting into logic gate territory. X can happen during A AND B, A OR B maybe a variation of other gating actions if the diode is replaced by a threshold device.

I also tried modifying the inertia of the iron slug using another mass within a cavity inside the iron slug. Suppose we had a spring at the bottom inside the slug cavity. Now when the slug moves upward the internal mass is displaced downward. The internal mass delay tends to make the motor action faster and the generator action slower. Here we are only limited by our imagination and there are countless ways we could modify the system.

So this notion that things need always act the same based on our casual observations is obviously not true. Any system can be changed in any number of ways.

AC

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

F6FLT

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #118 on: 2025-09-03, 22:06:04 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2497

Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-03, 18:59:49

... There are FE claims on both solenoid and rotating type reluctance motors. Like many FE technologies...

FE technologies do not exist. Not even one. If they did, we would not be here talking about them; they would be powering our homes.

Since no new energy source is involved in what you have described to us, and since everything you have described can be modelled by a Lagrangian, which is logically equivalent to descriptions by forces, your systems cannot produce extra energy. The conclusion is purely logical.
And since your speech is not accompanied by a description of a measurement protocol and data that would cast doubt on the theory or suggest that an unknown energy source is at work, because experiment takes precedence over theory, it serves no purpose. Absolutely none. It's just childish babble to amuse oneself, reinforce one's faith in utopias, and prevent experimenters from moving forward by diverting them to stories of yesterday's "technologies" that never worked.

---------------------------

"Open your mind, but not like a trash bin"

Verpies

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #119 on: 2025-09-03, 22:23:54 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4577

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-09-03, 22:06:04

FE technologies do not exist. Not even one.

But you cannot prove that because the lack of proof of existence is not a proof for nonexistence. That's pure logic for you.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-09-03, 22:06:04

If they did, we would not be here talking about them; they would be powering our homes.

That's not an argument because open-sourcing is not guaranteed to happen. I think that human greed and fear of the establishment leads rather to the opposite behavior.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-09-03, 22:06:04

Since no new energy source is involved in what you have described to us, and since everything you have described can be modeled by a Lagrangian, which is logically equivalent to descriptions by forces, your systems cannot produce extra energy. The conclusion is purely logical.

Only, if the forces are conservative. The HV gas discharge across electrodes composed of various materials is a system of so many variables that it would be arrogant to claim its total calculability.

Quote from: F6FLT on 2025-09-03, 22:06:04

It's just childish babble to amuse oneself, reinforce one's faith in utopias, and prevent experimenters from moving forward by diverting them to stories of yesterday's "technologies" that never worked.

That was uncalled for. Playing a mindreader and a psychologist is a slippery slope. It's not exactly hard science - you know.

Yesterday's technologies like the Adams' motor can be very educational for beginners. For example if non-laminated steel (nor ferrite) is used then the coil may actually repel the steel member when dΦ/dt is fast enough.
I actually used this effect to impart an extra kinetic energy to a solid steel projectile in my coil-gun. (a chopped up nail segment without the head because it's cheap and available).

Smudge

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #120 on: 2025-09-05, 11:28:25 »

Group: Professor
Hero Member

Posts: 2363

There is much evidence that electrons are real particles having three known characteristics, mass, electric charge and spin. The so-called spin is a magnetic dipole moment of magnitude the Bohr magneton. If you have an electron gas with all the spin vectors aligned, within a magnetic field that is parallel to the spin vectors, and the field magnitude has a gradient at right angles to that vector direction (the least complex case of a vector field with Curl), all the electrons are attracted towards the stronger field. The electron movement is current, the force on an electron relates to an effective electric field so that region of space would appear to have a ratio of voltage to current that is negative resistance. This leads to the prospect of an electrically connected positive resistance in some other region of space receiving some energy. When this is analysed to discover the source of that energy, by modelling the electron dipoles as tiny current loops it is found that the voltage induced into each loop from the increasing magnetic field acts on the current to exactly account for the output energy. IMO this can’t be coincidence.

The analysis is straightforward and doesn’t use dubious math. The only contentious issue is the magnetic field passing through the electron particle doing that thing, opposing whatever is driving the spin. I am much taken with this concept of electrons as quantum dynamos. Of all the folk law devices in the FE community that F6LT rubbishes there is one that he thinks may be real, and that is the Unruh/Coler stromerzeuger. Now there is clear evidence that this used electric current injected into high purity Fe rods via permanent magnets, such spin injection being the only aspect of this complex circuit that is unconventional.

Smudge

broli

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #121 on: 2025-09-05, 15:39:05 »

Sr. Member

Posts: 372

Quote from: Smudge on 2025-09-05, 11:28:25

There is much evidence that electrons are real particles having three known characteristics, mass, electric charge and spin. The so-called spin is a magnetic dipole moment of magnitude the Bohr magneton. If you have an electron gas with all the spin vectors aligned, within a magnetic field that is parallel to the spin vectors, and the field magnitude has a gradient at right angles to that vector direction (the least complex case of a vector field with Curl), all the electrons are attracted towards the stronger field. The electron movement is current, the force on an electron relates to an effective electric field so that region of space would appear to have a ratio of voltage to current that is negative resistance. This leads to the prospect of an electrically connected positive resistance in some other region of space receiving some energy. When this is analysed to discover the source of that energy, by modelling the electron dipoles as tiny current loops it is found that the voltage induced into each loop from the increasing magnetic field acts on the current to exactly account for the output energy. IMO this can’t be coincidence.

The analysis is straightforward and doesn’t use dubious math. The only contentious issue is the magnetic field passing through the electron particle doing that thing, opposing whatever is driving the spin. I am much taken with this concept of electrons as quantum dynamos. Of all the folk law devices in the FE community that F6LT rubbishes there is one that he thinks may be real, and that is the Unruh/Coler stromerzeuger. Now there is clear evidence that this used electric current injected into high purity Fe rods via permanent magnets, such spin injection being the only aspect of this complex circuit that is unconventional.

Smudge

The most interesting part of the spin of an electron is that a a spin-½ particle doesn’t come back to the same quantum state after a 360° turn. Instead, you need a 720° rotation for the wavefunction to return to itself. it’s like a Möbius strip turn it once and you’re not back to the start, only after two full turns.

Allcanadian

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #122 on: 2025-09-06, 02:15:20 »

Group: Moderator
Hero Member

Posts: 3100

Smudge

Quote

There is much evidence that electrons are real particles having three known characteristics, mass, electric charge and spin.

When I think of particles like the electron-proton and forces I always remember a quote in A.D.Moore's book on electrostatics burned into my mind. Moore claimed, if we have a 1 cm cube of aluminum and separate all the positive and negative charges 1 m apart the forces pulling them back together is about 14 quadrillion metric tons of force or 14,000,000,000,000,000 tons. Verified using an AI. It's almost obscene isn't it?, I mean the known forces within matter are beyond 99% of peoples imagination.

Even more mind boggling Moore calculated the forces explained above were equivalent to the weight exerted by a steel cube 76 miles in length, width and height. Ergo, at 76 mph it would take you one hour to drive the length of any side of said cube...

Of course, as Moore said, force is not energy, however it gives us a good indication of how much energy is required to change the charge density in a material or area. So this notion that it doesn't take much energy to move or separate large numbers of charges seems absurd. We have evidence of what happens when these internal forces in matter acting over a distance are released... we call it fission (nuclear energy) and fusion.

So it should be obvious we do not have an energy problem. What we have is a lack of knowledge and understanding problem.

Not reflecting on you of course, your pretty cool and very intelligent, more so at the insanity machine our society has become... basically it's Friday.

---------------------------

Comprehend and Copy Nature... Viktor Schauberger

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”― Richard P. Feynman

chief kolbacict	Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #123 on: 2025-09-06, 08:12:20 »
Sr. Member Posts: 419	Quote from: Allcanadian on 2025-09-06, 02:15:20 Moore claimed, if we have a 1 cm cube of aluminum and separate all the positive and negative charges 1 m apart the forces pulling them back together is about 14 quadrillion metric tons of force or 14,000,000,000,000,000 tons. In this case, is it possible to increase the pressure of the gas in a closed volume by giving it a charge?

Verpies

Re: Free Energy is easy « Reply #124 on: 2025-09-08, 15:41:49 »

Group: Administrator
Hero Member

Posts: 4577

Quote from: broli on 2025-09-05, 15:39:05

The most interesting part of the spin of an electron is that a a spin-½ particle doesn’t come back to the same quantum state after a 360° turn. Instead, you need a 720° rotation for the wavefunction to return to itself. it’s like a Möbius strip turn it once and you’re not back to the start, only after two full turns.

Yes and I'd like you to notice that this is 2-dimensional rotation.